Tuesday, October 20, 2015

It’s easy to get personally overwhelmed in
today’s day and age.We are bombarded by
the 24/7 news cycle, constant e-mails, social media, and a world (for good and
for bad) that is literally “at our finger tips”- - or, at least, our “mouse
clicks.”

The same is true in our professional lives.Relative to school improvement and maximizing
student learning, new national (or international) reports are published daily,
new experts seem to emerge weekly, and new approaches are marketed constantly.

And then, there are the “mixed messages”- -
especially from the U.S. Department of Education and many state departments of
education.These messages come in the
form of guidance instructions, white papers, websites and webinars, state-wide
professional development programs (paid by the taxpayers), and even targeted grant
proposal requests.

While our state and federal leaders say,
“This is voluntary”. . . they typically communicate, “We know better than you”.
. . and they often mean, “You would be well-advised to do this.”

I have seen this recently- - and for too
long a period of time- - as it relates to the “options” for school improvement,
PBIS (Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports), identifying and treating
dyslexia and learning disabilities, and RtI and multi-tiered services.

The result, for many harried and overwhelmed
educators, is to just assume that the “experts” sending us e-mails or in our
state capitols have field-tested and validated their approaches.However, even when their approaches don’t make
sense, many educators often accept them anyways, because they either want to be
“in compliance,” or they don’t have time to research and vet the alternatives.

_ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _

Staying Grounded

Educators need expertise that provides
specific “evidence-based blueprints” (or road maps) that guide effective
teaching, steer differentiated classroom instruction, and address students who
are not learning, mastering, or applying the information that is being presented.These blueprints must flex with different
student and staff conditions, while maintaining the integrity needed to
accomplish functional and real student outcomes.

And just like the blueprint to a house that
provides exact dimensions, plumbing and wiring locations, and decorative
details. . . the blueprint for an effective school and classroom needs to look at
the intersection of curricular factors, teacher-instructional factors,
and student factors.

And why?Because teachers and administrators are dealing with real students, real
situations, real resources (of the lack thereof), and colleagues who are doing
the best that they can with the information and skills that they possess.

While I constantly “live” this reality in
the schools I work with across the county, it was even more evident than usual
during the past two weeks as I traveled from Michigan to New Jersey to Kentucky
to Ohio.

For example, in one school, I found myself
restraining a third grader who decided to turn over every desk in the in-school
suspension room, and begin to use pencils as darts.

In another day treatment school, I watched
as the local police handcuffed and arrested an adolescent boy and girl who had
brought a box cutter and a butter knife to school in what staff thought was the
beginning of a gang-related act of violence.

And in a third school, I had to argue with a
new and inexperienced vice principal who did not have the knowledge and skills
to recognize the limitations of the state’s PBIS training that she had just
attended.At the same time, her building
principal (with whom I have worked for over a decade) knew that the evidence-based
approaches we have collaboratively implemented in her school do work- - it
is just that her staff stopped doing the work.

_ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _

Another National Survey on Literacy
Standards:Classroom
Implications ?

Last week (October 13th), the
National Center for Literacy Education (NCLE) released a report, Building
Literacy Capacity:The Conditions for
Effective Standards Implementation.This report summarized a May, 2015 on-line survey of over 1,400
building-level educators who disproportionately (50% of them) taught at the
high school level.

Critically, the survey was sent only to
building-level educators in public pre-kindergarten through Grade 12 schools in
states that had recently adopted or revised their literacy standards (that
is, a limited, pre-targeted sample).While educators with different school roles (principals, librarians,
instructional coaches) were originally surveyed, this Report analyzed and focused
only on the “findings specific to classroom teachers.”

Significantly, the Report’s author noted
that those responding to the survey represented a “sample of convenience.”It was also noted that, given the disproportionate
number of high school respondents, “sample weighting procedures were used to
increase the relative weight of responses from elementary teachers in all
summary statistics.”All of the data
were reported in percentages with no grade-level differentiation.

While I am not criticizing the motivation
behind this Report, it is concerning that:

* The
survey questions seem to be tailored to the mission, focus, and “theory of
action” of this organization (which consists of stakeholders that include over
10 national education associations).Thus, the results appeared to be biased toward supporting most facets of
the organization’s model of literacy learning.

* As noted above, there were a number of
methodological weaknesses in the study which likely impact the validity and
generalizability of the results.As an
Editorial Board member and reviewer (over the years) for half a dozen refereed
professional journals, I have my doubts that this study would have been
published in any of them.

* Regardless, the Report was unveiled
through a national Press Release, a social media deluge, and coverage in a
prominent Education Week Teacher blog.The media coverage emphasized only the summary and primary outcomes of
the study.It was left to the individual
professional to read the Summary of Findings document where the methodological
limitations and statistical transformations noted above were discussed.

_ _ _ _
_

Once again, my point is that this
study represents many studies that, over the years, have been commissioned
or sponsored by different governmental agencies, national associations,
coalitions, foundations, university institutes, and others - - and have been
released into our media-saturated professional worlds.

Ultimately, it is our obligation as
responsible consumers to decide when (a) the “research” questions are
self-selected to produce self-fulfilling results; (b) methodological and other
weaknesses are present and de-emphasized; and (c) a study’s conclusions support
an educational or political agenda favored by the sponsoring group.

All of this puts the “burden of proof” on
the individual to determine the quality, importance, and generalizability of
any study and its outcomes.And yet,
there just isn’t enough time.Given the
speed and demands of our professional lives (see the Introduction above), we
sometimes accept the results of studies that confirm our beliefs, rather than
analyze them in an objective and discerning way.

And, sometimes, this is exactly what some
sponsoring groups depend on.

_ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _

Getting Back to the Classroom

All of the critique aside, the NCLE Report’s
conclusions were anchored by the group’s “Theory of Action,” and organized in
five blueprint areas:Assessment,
Instruction, Leadership, Professional Learning, and Curriculum.

While all of these areas potentially impact
classroom instruction, the Report’s findings and recommendations discussed the
kind of global, school-level, top-down strategies that sound great, but are
open to interpretation and misinterpretation.

For example, the Report’s Press Release
discussed the characteristics below as part of the “emerging” standards-based
literacy instruction blueprint:

* Assessment
needs to be used to provide feedback on the learning process.

* Professional
Learning should be an investment where time is available for teacher
collaboration.

* Schools
need to provide the time and support that allows teachers to review, adapt, and
even create their own curricular materials to reflect instructional standards.

_ _ _ _
_

While this is all well and good, for our “how-many-e-mails-did-you-get-today”
educators, we have got to target their classrooms, instruction, and students.

That is, if we truly want to improve student
learning, we need to stop inundating and overwhelming educators with top-down
generalizations, and give them clear and explicit guidance that focuses on the
Instructional Environment.

_ _ _ _
_

The Instructional Environment involves
the integration of curricular, teacher-instructional, and student
characteristics and factors.Expanding briefly:

* The Curricular Characteristics and Factors . . . involve the
different academic curricula taught in a classroom, as well as their connection
to state standards and benchmarks, and district scope and sequence objectives
(i.e., “What needs to be learned?”).

Among the questions that teachers need answered in this area are the
following:

Does my
curriculum specify the particular objectives that the student is expected
to master for each instructional unit?

Does my
curriculum specify the particular skills that the student must possess as
a prerequisite to meeting the instructional objectives for each unit?

Does my
curriculum task analyze specific skills, when appropriate, such that
sequential and mastery-oriented learning results for all students?

Does my
curriculum provide a range of levels to accommodate the different
cognitive and language levels that might exist within an integrated
classroom?

Does my
curriculum introduce new skills such that students have a high probability
of success and provide sufficient positive practice opportunities for
students to attain mastery?

Does my
curriculum have built-in opportunities for students to transfer new
training to other academic situations, applications, and contexts?

Does my
curriculum have horizontal skill books and other materials available for
students who need extra instruction and/or practice to attain mastery?

Does my
curriculum follow research-based methods of instruction relative to
student mastery and other relevant outcomes?

_ _ _ _ _

* The Teacher-Instructional Characteristics and Factors . . .
involve the teachers who are teaching specific academic curricula, and how they
organize and execute their classroom instruction (i.e., “Are appropriate
instructional and management strategies being used?”).

Among the questions that teachers need answered in this area are the
following:

Does my
instructional environment support the learning/educational process?

Am I being
effective with all students?

Can I adapt
or modify the curriculum such that there is an appropriate
student-curriculum match?

Is my
instruction programmed for student success?

When students
are not responding to effective, differentiated instruction, is there a
problem-solving process available to determine the root cause of the
problem, and can the assessment results be linked directly to
intervention?

When academic
modifications, accommodations, or interventions are needed, do I have the
knowledge, skill, confidence, objectivity, and/or interactional skills to
maximize success?

When academic
modifications, accommodations, or interventions are needed, are there
appropriate resources, support materials, and staff available to me to
maximize success?

When academic
modifications, accommodations, or interventions are needed, are the
recommended interventions acceptable, socially valid, and able to be
implemented effectively and realistically?

_ _ _ _ _

* The Student Characteristics and Factors . . . look especially
at whether students are engaged in learning; are responding to effective instruction
and sound curricula; and are motivated and able to learn, master, and apply
academic material (i.e., “Is each student capable, prepared, motivated, and
able to learn, and are they learning?”).

Among the questions that teachers need answered in this area are the
following:

Do all of
my students have the prerequisite skills for the required/desired academic
tasks?

Do all of
my students have the self-competency, cognitive/metacognitive,
motivational, social/interactive, executive, and other supportive skills
or strategies needed to for successful academic engagement and execution?

Do all of
my students have and/or use the appropriate learning styles and approaches
needed to successfully complete all academic tasks?

Are all of
my students motivated to learn, dedicated to independent learning, and
able to work individually, in small group settings, and in whole-group
instruction?

Are all of
my students able to evaluate their own academic performance, or respond to
formative and summative feedback that reflects on their progress,
accomplishments, and goals?

These are the
questions that teachers and administrators need answered when we approach them
with new studies or national reports that describe (sometimes) new strategies,
programs, or initiatives.

As working
practitioners dealing with real students in real classrooms, these educators
need fewer global, school-level, top-down strategies, and more direct,
practical, step-by-step, field-tested, and student/staff friendly strategies
and interventions. . . especially when they have academically struggling or
behaviorally challenging students.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Summary

If
we are really committed to better, high, and achievable outcomes for all
students, we need to focus more on characteristics and factors that
are directly related to our classrooms- - our Instructional Environments.

This
is what our research tells us, and this is what our educators- - especially our
teachers- - want and need.

National surveys and reports are important.But they sometimes get more media attention
than they should. . . and sometimes, this attention persuades district and
school administrators to begin professional development initiatives that are
misapplied, misguided, and doomed for failure.

This is especially problematic when the
studies and reports are flawed, when they are published anyways, and when their
flaws are not transparently acknowledged.

_ _ _ _ _

I
hope that you will reflect on this message’s information and thoughts.Know that I
appreciate everything that you do as educational leaders in our country.I look forward to YOUR thoughts and comments.Let me know how I can help your state,
regional cooperative, district, or school to move to the next level of
excellence.

Connecting with Howie

Follow by Email

About Me

Howard M. Knoff, Ph.D. is the creator and Director of Project ACHIEVE.After 22 years as a university professor and over 12 years as a federal grant director for a state department of education, he continues his national work as a full-time national consultant, author, and presenter.

Dr. Knoff is recognized nationwide as an expert in the following areas:

·School Improvement and
Turn-Around, Strategic Planning and Organizational Development

·Differentiated Academic
Instruction and Academic Interventions for Struggling Students

·Social, Emotional, and
Behavioral Instruction and Strategic and Intensive Interventions for Challenging
Students

·Multi-tiered (RtI)
Services, Supports, and Program

·Effective Professional
Development and On-Site Consultation and Technical Assistance

From 2003 through 2015, he was the Director of the federally-funded State Improvement Grant (SIG; 2003-2009) which then became the State Personnel Development Grant (SPDG; 2009-2015) for the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE). These grants funded the state-wide scale-up of Project ACHIEVE--especially its school improvement, positive behavioral support, and multi-tiered RtI service system components. Through the ADE's Elementary and Secondary Education Act flexibility process, Project ACHIEVE was the state's school improvement model for all Focus schools.

Prior to that, Dr. Knoff was a Professor of School Psychology at the University of South Florida (USF, Tampa, FL) for 18 years, and Director of its School Psychology Program for 12 years. He also was the creator and Director of the Institute for School Reform, Integrated Services, and Child Mental Health and Educational Policy at USF, and was instrumental in leading the program to the accreditation of its doctoral program by the American Psychological Association.

Project ACHIEVE is a nationally-recognized school
effectiveness/school improvement program that has been designated a National
Model Prevention Program by the U. S. Department of Health & Human
Service’s Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
(SAMHSA).Over the past 30 years, Howie
has implemented Project ACHIEVE components in thousands of schools or school
districts—training in every state in the country.He has also been awarded over $21 million in
federal, state, or foundation grants for this work, and recently received two
School Climate Transformation grants and one Elementary and Secondary
Counseling grant from the federal government to support work in Pennsylvania,
Michigan, and Kentucky.

Dr. Knoff received his Ph.D. degree from
Syracuse University in 1980, and has worked as a practitioner, consultant,
licensed private psychologist, and university professor since 1978.Dr. Knoff is widely respected for his
research and writing on school reform and organizational change, consultation
and intervention processes, social skills and behavior management training,
Response-to-Intervention, and professional issues.

He has authored or co-authored 18 books,
published over 100 articles and book chapters, and delivered over 1,000 papers
and workshops nationally—including the Stop & Think Social Skills
Program (preschool through middle school editions) and the Stop &
Think Parent Book:A Guide to Children’s
Good Behavior through Cambium Learning/Sopris West Publishers and Project
ACHIEVE Press, respectively.

Dr. Knoff has a long history of working
with schools, districts, and community and state agencies and
organizations.For example, he has consulted with a number of state departments of
education, the Department of Defense Dependents School District during Desert
Storm in 1991, and the Southern Poverty Law Center.He has also served as an expert witness in
federal court five times, in addition to working on many other state and local
cases—largely for legal advocacy firms who are representing special education
and other students in need.

Specific to
school safety issues, Dr. Knoff was on the writing team that helped produce Early
Warning, Timely Response:A Guide to
Safe Schools, the document commissioned by President Clinton that was sent
to every school in the country in the Fall of 1998; and he participated in a
review capacity on the follow-up document, Safeguarding our Children: An
Action Guide.

A recipient of the Lightner Witmer Award
from the American Psychological Association's School Psychology Division for
early career contributions in 1990, and over $21 million in external grants
during his career, Dr. Knoff is a Fellow
of the American Psychological Association (School Psychology Division), a Nationally
Certified School Psychologist, a Licensed Psychologist in Arkansas, and he has
been trained in both crisis intervention and mediation processes.Frequently
interviewed in all areas of the media, Dr. Knoff has been on the NBC Nightly
News, numerous television and radio talk shows, and he was highlighted on an
ABC News' 20/20 program on "Being Teased, Taunted, and
Bullied."

Finally, Dr. Knoff was the 21st President of the National Association of
School Psychologists which now represents more than 25,000 school psychologists
nationwide. He is constantly sought after for his expertise in a wide variety of school,
psychological, and other professional issues. You can e-mail him at: knoffprojectachieve@earthlink.net